Risky shifts, cautious shifts, and group polarization

Fraser, Colin; Gouge, Celia; Billig, Michael

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010103

Cited by 90 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Signals 0 and 1 can be thought of as arguments pro-caution and pro-risk (re-2 In the early literature subjects were asked to provide the minimum probability of success in the risky alternative required to choose the risky alternative. Using this probability scale was proved to be equivalent to using a scale indicating the extent of agreement with the cautious alternative (Fraser, Gouge and Billig, 1971). 3 The precision is the inverse of the variance spectively) a subject comes up with to motivate his choice.…”

Section: Specific Models Of Group Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Polarization in a Model of Information Aggregation

Roux

Sobel

2015

American Economic Journal: Microeconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group Polarization refers to the tendency of groups to make more extreme decisions than individuals. In decision problems under incomplete information, individuals make decisions based on their private information while groups gather the information of their members. As a result, groups are typically better informed than individuals. This paper sees group polarization as an outcome of the difference in access to information. We consider two decision makers, a group and an individual, facing a monotone decision problem. They share similar preferences and prior belief but the group is better informed than the individual in the sense the monotone information order (Athey and Levin, 2001). This paper presents sufficient conditions under which the group's decisions polarize as compared to the individual's. Group polarization is considered from two points of view: ex ante, the group's decisions are more dispersed in the sense of second order stochastic dominance if optimal actions are a linear function of beliefs. Conditional on a particular state, the group's actions are more extreme (in a stochastic sense) if optimal actions are linear in beliefs and the group has more information conditional on that state. * Paris School of Economics-University of Paris 1 † University of California, San Diego 1 We present natural environments where the linearity condition fails and in which group polarization does not fully occur. We relate our results to existing experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Literature Classifica-

show abstract

Section: Specific Models Of Group Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Polarization in a Model of Information Aggregation

Roux

Sobel

2015

American Economic Journal: Microeconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fraser et al, 1971;Lamm et al, 1973;Lamm, 1988;Melia Â et al, 1998;Rodrigo, 1998) in the sense that the results refer to an aggregate of groups, they are not the results for individual groups but for their average and the procedure can mask the real shifts in individual groups. In this sense, McGarty, Turner, Hogg, David, & Wetherell (1992, p. 6) de®ne group polarization as`the tendency for individual groups to shift in the direction of their individual pre-test means on a given item' and sample polarization as`the tendency for a collection of groups to become more extreme on an item in the direction of the pre-test mean for the whole sample.…”

Section: Parametric Approach Critical Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This procedure based on aggregation across groups has been questioned by some authors (see e.g. Fraser et al, 1971;Lamm, 1988;Lamm et al, 1973;Melia Â, Rodrigo, Sese Â, & Sospedra, 1998;Rodrigo, unpublished dissertation, 1998) because it can actually mask real changes in individual groups. In this sense, in some research on group polarization an alternative methodological approach has been applied where the type of change observed from time 1 to time 2 in each individual group is previously categorized and the resulting contingency table is analyzed using the Pearson chi-squared statistic (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the group polarization hypothesis by using logit models

Rodrigo

Ato

2001

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on methodological aspects of group polarization research and has two well-de®ned parts. The ®rst part presents a methodological overview of group polarization research together with an examination of the inadequacy, under certain circumstances, of the traditional parametric approach usually used to test this phenomenon based on pre-test/post-test means comparison across groups. It is shown that this approach will produce masks effects when groups are heterogeneous with regard to the observed change from pre-test to post-test. The second part suggests an alternative methodological approach based on logit models for the analysis of contingency tables from a categorization of the variable`kind of shift'. This approach is illustrated and compared with the parametric approach with a simulated data set.

show abstract

“…But what about those (few) Choice-Dilemma items on which no risky shift, or even cautious shift, has been reported to occur (Rabow, Fowler, Bradford, Hofeller and Shibuya, 1966;Stoner, 1968;Vidmar and Burdeney, 1969;Fraser, Gouge and Billig, 1971)? Our assumption is that on such items subjects consider the most admirable decisions to be no higher, or even lower, in risk level than their own actual decisions.…”

Section: General Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐image, perception of peers' risk acceptance and risky shift

Lamm

Trommsdorff

Rost-Schaude

1972

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twelve four-person female groups o f subjects displaying the typical underestimation o f their peers' (relative to their own) riskThe weight of relevant research indicates that the group risky shift is caused by the operation, through discussion, of a pre-existing bias toward risk acceptance. The characteristics of this 'value', and how it operates, remain controversial questions, and the present study is intended to provide some clarification.Various types of evidence have been submitted to show that risk acceptance is * Conducted a t the Sonderforschungsbethank Wiltraud Paule for assisting in ninreich fur Sozial-und Wirtschaftspsycholoning subjects and Jorg Graff for his help in gische Entscheidungsforschung, Universitat the computer analysis of the data. Dr. Paul Mannheim, with financial aid from the Gebhard and Jiirg Graff authored the comDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. We puter programs used.

show abstract

Risky shifts, cautious shifts, and group polarization

Cited by 90 publications

References 24 publications

Group Polarization in a Model of Information Aggregation

Group Polarization in a Model of Information Aggregation

Testing the group polarization hypothesis by using logit models

Self‐image, perception of peers' risk acceptance and risky shift

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About